About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 10
CSPAN2 3
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
CNN 1
CNNW 1
LANGUAGE
English 23
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
in afghanistan and pakistan. not later than 120 days after enactment of this act, the entity described in subsection 8, shall submit to the president and the congress, a report. sense of congress, it is the sense of congress that the entity should be modeled on the iraq study group. section 8127, not more than $200 million may be expended -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise. mr. carter: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. carter of texas. strike lines 6 through 9 relating to military musical units. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: i rise to address an issue i think is very important to the patriotic men and women who fight and defend our country. representative mccollum, in good graces, asked that we restrict the military band funding by $120 million and in an attempt to help with the savings. but the congressional budget office has informed us that this reduction, this $120 million re
a week in afghanistan. among the expenditures, our payment for projects that are rebuilding infrastructure in afghanistan, roads, bridges, schools, in some cases hospitals. "the washington post" recently reported that the afghan government is taxing american aid. we send money there to build a road. we have to hire contractors in order to do that. and the afghan government is trying to tax that money for their own coffers. so it's not enough that our taxpayers are spending billions of dollars on projects to rebuild their infrastructure. the afghan government is literally trying to reach in the pocket and double dip and tax our taxpayers for our taxpayers' generosity in giving them money. . how does that make any sense at all? after this was reported, they are stepping up their efforts to grab that cash. they are doing things like threatening to detain contractors. if they don't pay up, take money that's assigned to build that road and put that money in the afghan covers, the afghan officials are threatening to detain our contractors. they are denying licenses to our contract
up to the current wars in iraq and afghanistan and the not war. walter reed's doctors have also treated a number of u.s. presidents, lawmakers, and foreign leaders. in '07, a "the washington post" investigation revealed that many wounded troops had been living there in horrible conditions. two years earlier a government commission had voted to close the medical center and consolidate operations with the military facilities in nearby maryland and virginia. at a ceremony today, the army secretary john mchugh said walter reed has always been not just a hospital but an inspiration. >> here it's impossible to walk away without having been uplifted by the determination, the shear grit of those who are under the care of the professionals at walter reed. those warriors, those heros who have endured traumatic injuries and often horrific pain. yet, through all of that, maintain their fighting spirit, the spirit that has always been the heart and soul of the american soldier. >> shepard: the handover set to be fully complete by september the 15th when the state department and the district
, in effect, go dark. paychecks for troops in afghanistan and iraq and based around the world could stop. f.a.a. towers could shut down. could the f.b.i. and the c.i.a., border crossings could close, safety inspections of food americans eat and cargo that enters our ports could halt. literally every function of government could cease. social security checks, payments to our veterans. we've heard that before. there would be no discussion of which operations and personnel were essential. all the payments would very likely stop. some have said we could prioritize which bills to pay. even if that wouldn't irreparably damage our nation's reputation and credit in the global economy and the globe at community, which it would, is also a complete fiction. our government won't even be able to cover the bills due on august 3. it will simply run out of money and because we'll ben default and our credit rating trashed, we'll be able to borrow the money not again to keep running, even if we wanted to. that's a picture secretary geithner painted. like i said, it's grim. many of my republican colleagues un
? well, they say that the savings from winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan don't count. specifically, they say that these savings are -- quote -- "a widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism." unquote. yet all but three of the 43 senators who signed this letter voted for the ryan budget on may 25 this year. that budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical in savings. so those savings were legitimate enough to secure their support for the ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their support for leader reid's debt ceiling compromise. and here we are on the precipice, and suddenly they've done a 180-degree turn. either these savings count or they don't. you can't have it both ways. so we are proposing exactly what republicans have been saying that they want. yet instead of accepting this deal, they're using what precious time we have left to push forward with their agenda, and it's not even their agenda. it's the tea party agenda. their radical agenda is a wolf in sheep's clothing. last night we voted down speaker boehner's plan which requ
in afghanistan, that's not going to coerce me into voting for it. on the other hand, i do think that some of the few remaining serious republicans understand that they will get blamed for this. so i think there is some pressure to do that. one other point i want to mention, rachel, which deeply angers me, these are people, the tea party people, who came to be the constitutionalists, they are in the process of launching the most fundamental assault on the american constitution, fundamental principle we have ever seen, and that was majority rule. the great breakthrough in the 18th century was self governance. and if you read the constitution, the assumption is majority rule in congress. it's majority rule in the states. in no part of the u.s. constitution are you required to get more than a simple majority of both houses to do anything. there's a 2/3 required for treaty only in the senate. that was special with foreign powers. there's a 2/3 requirement to amend the constitution or to impeach someone. but for legislation everywhere in the constitution all you need is a majority, and these pe
down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of thelan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the w is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trlion. and another thing that's scored in tt, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is phantom money,
dark. paychecks for troops in afghanistan and iraq and based around the world could stop. f.a.a. towers could shut down. so could the f.b.i. and the c.i.a., border crossings could close, safety inspections of food americans eat and cargo that enters our ports could halt. literally every function of governmentould cease. social security checks, payments to our veterans. we've heard that before. there would be no discussion of which operations and personnel were essential. all the payments would very likely stop. some have said we could priorize which bills to pay. even if that wouldn't irreparably damage our nation's reputation and credit in the global economy a the globe at community, which it would, is also a complete fiction. our government won't even be able to cover the bills due on august 3. it will simply run out of money and because we'll be in default and our credit rating trashed, we'll be able to borrow the money not again to keep running, even if we wanted to. that's a picture secretary geithner painted. like i said, it's grim. many of my republican colleagues understand this
'm barbara starr at the pentagon. the big news is general david petraeus on monday will leave afghanistan as commander of the war and be replaced by marine general john allen. petraeus will retire from the army after decades of service, come back to washington and head the central intelligence agency. >> i'm paul steinhauser. tomorrow tim pawlenty begins a swing through iowa doing well in the state that holds the first contest in the race for the white house is crucial to winning the nomination. wednesday, what's billed as the first ever twitter presidential debate. six candidates say they will take part in the event put on by an on drt -- online tea party group. >> i'm poppy harlow in new york. a watch dog association in washington opens its doors on thursday. the consumer financial protection bureau inspects the books of the biggest banks to ensure they are abiding by credit card laws and respond to consumer complaints. the white house has yet to appoint a director due to opposition in congress. we'll get key reports on the housing market and also earnings from g.e., coca-cola, wells fa
of iraq and afghanistan, it would take a serious look out of social security and medicare and in many cases contributing to this deficit. and it would say that those who benefit from ethanol subsidies and oil company tax breaks, the wealthiest people in this country would have to pay a little bit more to pay their fair share. something like that is what should be on the floor here this afternoon because it can pass, the president can sign it and it can solve the fiscal problems of this country or take us in the right direction. but we don't have something like that. instead we have a plan that says the following and puts it in the constitution, the guy who runs an ethanol company who gets massive public subsidies can make profits is completely left alone. he doesn't have to do anything. but for the woman who cleans his office at night is going to have to pay more to go to college, more for health care for herself, her children and her parents and more for just about anything she wants in her life. there's something wrong with that picture. sacrifice that is broadly shared is needed in
about fraud in afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, and now the congress wants us, after giving away our jobs, not fair trade, free trade agreements -- now they want to go back and give them away with korea. i cannot believe the direction that this country has gone in. we keep talking about corporate tax rates. that is the key word. "rate." they are not paying 35%. they are paying 4%, 6%, 9%, and i am making up the difference. the irs is after a relative of mine who lost their job. they owe them $5,000. karzei and his brother have walked off with billions of dollars and our congress cannot seem to stop it. guest: well,
is going to count winding down the war in afghanistan as a substantial part of the savings. that could be worth about $1 trillion over 10 years. meanwhile, john boehner is working on his own deficit- reduction debt limit increase plan. he would take -- that plan would be affected in two stages. the first would be $900 trillion or so deficit reduction package, spending cuts, paired with roughly equal amount in debt limit increase. then he would empower a special committee to find an additional $1.60 trillion to authorize or trigger another increase in the debt ceiling. the problem with this proposal, however, it would require raising the debt ceiling by the requisite $2.40 trillion amount into the stages. that is something the president and democratic leaders after yesterday's said is a nonstarter. they say it would create too much uncertainty for the marketplace and the economy if this process had to be replaced at the beginning of next year or summer of next year. >> the house republicans made their own at last it with a cap and balance plan that did not make it to the senate. the pre
the paper work, without a court order. while they were in iraq or afghanistan, they were the victim families. this is an area we want to look into. host: and their relation to david petraeus? guest: she is married to him. host: maria, a republican. you are on. caller: my husband and i both watch c-span regularly, and we are concerned about this agency created with a half of a $1 billion budget. our question is how much duplication is taking place? he mentioned a few minutes ago that hundreds of people have already been hired. could you let us know the duplication of these consumer protection services that this new agency is supposed to do, and how, and what is going to happen to these other employees within the federal government? guest: well, that is a very good question. consumer protection used to be in various different agencies. the fed had consumer, occ -- all of these different agencies. consumer protection was often a secondary thought, a third thought, or not even thought about at all. that is why regulators did not in any way most to curb the abuses in the sub-prime lending, which
american problem. we are not talking about the war in afghanistan or raising the debt ceiling i grant that. but we are talking about something which is profoundly troubling and disturbing to millions of americans and it is also on necessary. i thought what we were meant to do is try to clear up problems here, and ten years ago they came to us and said we will clear of the problems because they make us look bad if we don't and therefore you could trust us to do it and they did so all i'm saying is we are going to stick with this. the sec stated yesterday it is seeking comment on whether a band third party billing appreciate that and they settle things, the have settlements and the ftc and that is stuff that is already done and is the mission of guilt. general madigan i want you to know that that's the way i read at the rate in the near future i plan to introduce working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. the legislation that would put a stop to this because i simply cannot find any grain of sense to us having to have a hearing like this and have -- i'm sorry you haven't got any eno
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)